Natural Law Jurisprudence In Us Supreme Court Cases Since Roe V Wade

Since America’s founding, natural law principles play a critical role in the development of rights and human dignity. Commencing with the notion that rights are derived from a higher, metaphysical power over mere promulgation and human legislation, the natural law advocate sees law and human rights in the context of a more perpetual and perennial philosophy. Coupled with this is the view that the natural law provides a series of undeniable precepts for human operations or a natural prescription for human life based on the natural order. Hence early court cases tend to emphasize the “natural” versus the unnatural and just as compellingly argue that the natural order, aligned with the eternal law, delivers a measure for human action. Earlier US Supreme Court cases often use this sort of language in granting or denying rights in certain human activity. As a result, a survey of some of the most significant landmark cases from the Supreme Court are assessed in “Natural Law and the US Supreme Court since Roe v. Wade” and by implication, those cases which seem to disregard these fundamental principles, such as the slavery decisions, are highlighted.

Citizens United v. FEC -- McCutcheon v. FEC -- Clinton v. New York -- U.S. Term Limits v. Thornton -- Chevron, inc., v. Natural Resources Defense Council -- Korematsu v. U.S -- Griswold v. Connecticut -- Roe v. Wade -- Planned Parenthood of Southeastern Pennsylvania v. Casey -- Lawrence v. Texas -- Obergefell v. Hodges -- The Slaughterhouse Cases -- Milliken v. Bradley -- San Antonio School Cistrict v. Rodriguez -- McClesky v. Kemp -- General Elec. Co. v. Gilbert -- Kelo v. City of New London -- Lochner v. New York -- Wickard v. Filburn -- Brown v. Board of Education -- Washington v. Glucksberg -- Austin v. Michigan Chamber of Commerce -- United States v. Nixon -- United states v. Lopez -- Texas v. Johnson -- Gideon v. Wainwright -- Is democracy a good thing? : the arguments and the practicalities -- Foundational principles for a pro-democracy and process-oriented, and pragmatic jurisprudence -- Applying the foundational principles to the "worst" Supreme Court decisions, and arriving at non-ideological, process-oriented, and pro-democracy outcomes -- Concluding thoughts

Based on 20 years of research, including an examination of the papers of eight of the nine Justices who voted in Roe v. Wade and Doe v. Bolton, Abuse of Discretion is a critical review of the behind-the-scenes deliberations that went into the Supreme Court's abortion decisions and how the mistakes made by the Justices in 1971-1973 have led to the turmoil we see today in legislation, politics, and public health. The first half of the book looks at the mistakes made by the Justices, based on the case files, the oral arguments, and the Justices’ papers. The second half of the book critically examines the unintended consequences of the abortion decisions in law, politics, and women’s health. Why do the abortion decisions remain so controversial after almost 40 years, despite more than 50,000,000 abortions, numerous presidential elections, and a complete turnover in the Justices? Why did such a sweeping decision—with such important consequences for public health, producing such prolonged political turmoil—come from the Supreme Court in 1973? Answering those questions is the aim of this book. The controversy over the abortion decisions has hardly subsided, and the reasons why are to be found in the Justices’ deliberations in 1971-1972 that resulted in the unprecedented decision they issued. Discuss Abuse of Discretion on Twitter using hashtag #AbuseOfDiscretion.

This book tells the movement and litigation stories behind important reproductive rights and justice cases. The twelve chapters span topics including contraception, abortion, pregnancy, and assisted reproductive technologies, telling the stories of these cases using a wide-lens perspective that illuminates the complex ways law is debated and forged--in social movements, in representative government, and in courts. Some of the chapters shed new light on cases that are very much part of the constitutional law canon--Griswold v. Connecticut, Roe v. Wade, Planned Parenthood v. Casey, Nevada Department of Human Resources v. Hibbs. Others introduce the reader to new cases from state and lower federal courts that illuminate paths not taken in the law. Reading the cases together highlights the lived horizon in which individuals have encountered and struggled with questions of reproductive rights and justice at different eras in our nation's history--and so reveals the many faces of law and legal change. The volume is being published at a critical and perhaps pivotal moment for this area of law. The changing composition of the Supreme Court, increased executive and legislative action, and shifting political interests have all pushed issues of reproductive rights and justice to the forefront of contemporary discourse. The volume is suited to a wide range of law school courses, including constitutional law, family law, employment law, and reproductive rights and justice; it could also be assigned in undergraduate or graduate courses on history, gender studies, and reproductive rights and justice.

A unique introduction to the constitutional arguments for and against the right to abortion In January 1973, the Supreme Court’s opinion in Roe v. Wade struck down most of the country's abortion laws and held for the first time that the Constitution guarantees women the right to safe and legal abortions. Nearly five decades later, in 2022, the Court’s 5-4 decision in Dobbs v. Jackson Women's Health Organization overturned Roe and eliminated the constitutional right, stunning the nation. Instead of finally resolving the constitutional issues, Dobbs managed to bring new attention to them while sparking a debate about the Supreme Court’s legitimacy. Originally published in 2005, What Roe v. Wade Should Have Said asked eleven distinguished constitutional scholars to rewrite the opinions in this landmark case in light of thirty years’ experience but making use only of sources available at the time of the original decision. Offering the best arguments for and against the constitutional right to abortion, the contributors have produced a series of powerful essays that get to the heart of this fascinating case. In addition, Jack Balkin gives a detailed historical introduction that chronicles the Roe litigation—and the constitutional and political clashes that followed it—and explains the Dobbs decision and its aftermath.

The way that Americans understand their Constitution and wider legal tradition has been dominated in recent decades by two exhausted approaches: the originalism of conservatives and the “living constitutionalism” of progressives. Is it time to look for an alternative? Adrian Vermeule argues that the alternative has been there, buried in the American legal tradition, all along. He shows that US law was, from the founding, subsumed within the broad framework of the classical legal tradition, which conceives law as “a reasoned ordering to the common good.” In this view, law’s purpose is to promote the goods a flourishing political community requires: justice, peace, prosperity, and morality. He shows how this legacy has been lost, despite still being implicit within American public law, and convincingly argues for its recovery in the form of “common good constitutionalism.” This erudite and brilliantly original book is a vital intervention in America’s most significant contemporary legal debate while also being an enduring account of the true nature of law that will resonate for decades with scholars and students.

In Section 1, I outline the history of natural law theory, covering Plato, Aristotle, the Stoics and Aquinas. In Section 2, I explore two alternative traditions of natural law, and explain why these constitute rivals to the Aristotelian tradition. In Section 3, I go on to elaborate a via negativa along which natural law norms can be discovered. On this basis, I unpack what I call three 'experiments in being', each of which illustrates the cogency of this method. In Section 4, I investigate and rebut two seminal challenges to natural law methodology, namely, the fact/value distinction in metaethics and Darwinian evolutionary biology. In Section 5, I then outline and criticise the 'new' natural law theory, which is an attempt to revise natural law thought in light of the two challenges above. I conclude, in Section 6, with a summary and some reflections on the prospects for natural law theory.

The U.S. Constitution found in school textbooks and under glass in Washington is not the one enforced today by the Supreme Court. In Restoring the Lost Constitution, Randy Barnett argues that since the nation's founding, but especially since the 1930s, the courts have been cutting holes in the original Constitution and its amendments to eliminate the parts that protect liberty from the power of government. From the Commerce Clause, to the Necessary and Proper Clause, to the Ninth and Tenth Amendments, to the Privileges or Immunities Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment, the Supreme Court has rendered each of these provisions toothless. In the process, the written Constitution has been lost. Barnett establishes the original meaning of these lost clauses and offers a practical way to restore them to their central role in constraining government: adopting a "presumption of liberty" to give the benefit of the doubt to citizens when laws restrict their rightful exercises of liberty. He also provides a new, realistic and philosophically rigorous theory of constitutional legitimacy that justifies both interpreting the Constitution according to its original meaning and, where that meaning is vague or open-ended, construing it so as to better protect the rights retained by the people. As clearly argued as it is insightful and provocative, Restoring the Lost Constitution forcefully disputes the conventional wisdom, posing a powerful challenge to which others must now respond. This updated edition features an afterword with further reflections on individual popular sovereignty, originalist interpretation, judicial engagement, and the gravitational force that original meaning has exerted on the Supreme Court in several recent cases.